6 However, as shown in this volume by NaвЂ™ama O. Translators, scribes, advisors and intellectuals voiced the MongolsвЂ™ demands in foreign tones, performing foreign rituals, and in ways more apt to achieve a diplomatic compromise. During this shift from вЂњnon-negotiationвЂќ to compromise вЂ“ as famously analysed by Aigle 5 вЂ“ the mediation of personnel specializing in the narratives and ways of communication of the populations the Mongols dealt with, in the East as well as in the West of Eurasia, became more and more prominent in the diplomatic process. By then, Chinggisid diplomacy had taken on a different role, also adopting a new rhetoric: intra-Mongol conflicts among members of the imperial lineage had to be dealt with alongside the interaction with foreign powers, and often the two issues overlapped in the framework of diplomatic communication.ДЄs a consequence, imperial edicts often became nuanced communication between rulers, either to state authority in the case of intra-Mongol disputes, or to seek alliances against common enemies. These dynamics of inclusiveness come more prominently to the fore starting from the second half of the thirteenth century, with the fragmentation of the empire into four khanates. This was achieved by including a multitude of people from different ethnicities and backgrounds, languages and rituals in the medieval MongolsвЂ™ system of diplomacy. In matters of Realpolitik, Chinggisid diplomacy built upon a complex mix of establishing kinship ties and economic domination, building a hierarchy of foreigners by giving interest to some and ignoring others. Thus, diplomatic practices from the period offered a distinctive narrative framework and new forms of interaction, which were functional to the universalistic purposes of the Mongols, allowing for unity and uniformity in the highly fragmented landscape of medieval Eurasia. The fundamental function of the jasaq was the construction of the MongolsвЂ™ authority, and the constant narration (or re-narration) of the origin of this authority. 4 It is exactly this connection with the creation of a new empire, that makes the diplomatic practices of the period distinctively Chinggisid. Studies on the period of the United Empire (1206-59) have highlighted how these rules of interaction were framed as part of ChinggisвЂ™ jasaq, thus constituting, as famously analysed by Voegelin, a proper set of laws that subjects ( de iure or de facto) of the Mongols had to respect. What unified these practices was a specific terminology and rhetoric derived from the MongolsвЂ™ worldview. 3 The Mongols in fact enabled the exchange of practices of diplomatic communication in different cultural spheres and added elements of their own, thus establishing a tradition which affected the juridical and diplomatic systems of huge parts of Eurasia for centuries. Traditional scholarship has investigated this question by looking mainly at chancellery documents.

2 On the other hand, it is important to ask: what made the diplomatic practices of the medieval Mongols distinctively Chinggisid? On the one hand, tracing the Turko-Mongolian precedents of these patterns of interaction is fundamental to situate Chinggisid diplomacy in the context of Eurasian diplomacy. Such a network was meant to determine with whom one could trade, with whom one could intermarry and against whom one would fight вЂ“ something which did not necessarily prevent the trade exchanges but rather complemented them (e.g.

He brought forth traditions of the Inner Asian cultural complex, 1 and expanded them even further to set up a network of more or less formalized dependencies. 1206-27) alternatingly combined military and diplomatic efforts to integrate his subjects and neighbors into his project of conquest. In building his empire, Chinggis Khan (r.

Age of empires 2 mongols